Lee Terry and Ron Paul give Burma the Bird

Congrats to Lee Terry (R-NE) and Ron Paul (R-TX). They were the only two to vote no on H.CON.RES.200 “concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress regarding the immediate and unconditional release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the severely deteriorating human rights situation in Burma.”

Nice work fellas! Ron Paul is also running for President. Interestingly enough, his slogan is “Hope for America”. It appears Congressman Paul offers no such hope for Burma. Congressman Terry, for his part, has offered up some very important legislation and does not appear to be all bad. I mean, “H.AMDT.747 to H.R. 3221, to accelerate the adoption of geothermal heat pumps by the Federal government” is important stuff right? I know he mostly works to boost Ethanol for his corn growing constituents back home, but I can’t quite figure why support for democratic expression in Burma would garner a no vote. He does, as his congressional website points out, support assisting those in Darfur:

I agree that the United States must continue to take strong steps to assist the innocent civilians and stop the violence in Darfur.

That’s a couple of really bad votes guys. It must be tough being the 2 in a 413-2 vote.

PS – Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has been under house arrest for 12 of the past 18 years by the military after winning an election they called for in 1990. She won the election and is the rightful Prime Minister of Burma, yet has remained in detention by the military. Read that last part again Congressmen. Slowly…

Educate yourself on Burma:Ron Paul Sucks!My warning is this: Be very careful about your blind allegiance to ANY candidate. Just because you happen to agree with one or 2 of their positions does not mean they are the right person. Look what people who gave George W. Bush their blind allegiance got for their trouble! Wake up, people, and stop hero-worshipping. Stop being sheep and start THINKING! Don’t you know the difference between right and wrong anymore????

Susanne

I totally agree with Ron Paul’s position on Burma. He makes total sense. Ron Paul rocks! He is quoted as follows:

Statement on Burma, H Con Res 200

October 2, 2007

Madame Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation not because I do not sympathize with the plight of the oppressed people of Burma , particularly as demonstrated by the continued confinement of Aung San Suu Kyi. Any time a government represses its citizenry it is reprehensible. My objection to this legislation is twofold. First, the legislation calls on the United Nations Security Council to ?take appropriate action? with regard to Burma and its internal conditions. This sounds like an open door for an outside military intervention under the auspices of the United Nations, which is something I do not support.

More importantly, perhaps, I am concerned that while going around the world criticizing admittedly abhorrent governmental actions abroad we are ignoring the very dangerous erosions of our own civil liberties and way of life at home. Certainly it is objectionable that the Burmese government holds its own citizens in jails without trial. But what about the secret prisons that our own CIA operates around the globe that hold thousands of individuals indefinitely and without trial? Certainly it is objectionable that the government of Burma can declare Aung San Suu Kyi a political prisoner to be held in confinement. But what about the power that Congress has given the president to declare anyone around the world, including American citizens, ?enemy combatants? subject to indefinite detention without trial? What about the ?military commissions act? that may well subject Americans to military trial with secret evidence permitted and habeas corpus suspended?

So while I am by no means unsympathetic to the current situation in Burma , as an elected Member of the United States House of Representatives I strongly believe that we would do better to promote freedom around the world by paying better attention to our rapidly eroding freedom here at home. I urge my colleagues to consider their priorities more closely and to consider the much more effective approach of leading by example.

#7: The concept of mutual exclusivity comes to mind. Ron might do well to consider it.

Kyle

With all these congressional resolutions you can never just look at the title and make your judgements from there. They hide a lot of very dodgy things inside seemingly laudable exteriors and I think the basis Dr Paul uses to register a no vote here is pretty sound. More importantly, it’s consistent with his non-interventionist foreign policy.

In response to comment no.6, I don’t think his support comes from people who just like one or two of his policies. I think that it speaks volumes for the man that so many will vote for him despite disagreeing with several of his positions – myself included. The reason for this is not blind allegiance, it comes from wanting to vote for someone of principle who has consistently stood by their word for many many years. That’s what I’m voting for – someone who actually does what they say they will do and whose reasons for any of his positions can be backed up with sound logic and a solid moral foundation. THAT is what a leader should be.

john

there are many other places where there are a lot of injustices going on. the problem is when we take the rightous stick and use it on others BUT refuse to judge ourselves.

the point is if i am a hypocrite and a cheat how can i tell others to stop!?

we should lead by example. the Ron paul message is take care of yoru own house first. can’t have a filthy house and tell others to clean theirs.